General Discussion

Walt Disney = Genius
Brogan at 9:32PM, Sept. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 121
joined: 2-21-2007
I've been spending the last week or so at Disney World and I've gotta say that when I checked out the Hollywood Studios part about the man himself - WOW, am I inspired! I must confess that I really didn't grow up on Disney movies that much and I don't really know what kind of person he was other than what he did for cartoons in general, but it is really amazing. I went to Disney World a couple of years ago, but I wasn't struck the same way I was this time. Anyone else know what I mean, or am I just going a little nuts?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
Warpedwenger at 9:41PM, Sept. 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,760
joined: 4-3-2007
Oh man I've always been a huge fan! The guy did so much for cartooning as an artform.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:47PM
Fortune Zero at 3:32AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 9-10-2008
Well, yeah. Up until recently, Disney as a whole has been a major source of crazy awesome animation for everybody. Even alot of Japanese anime writers and artists as children aspired to work for Disney. I can't say much for what Walt did personally, but the company he established completely revolutionized television and helped to establish animation as a legitimate and popular medium. I can guarantee that almost every single modern cartoonist–in animation and comics alike–owes at least a little something to Disney in one way or another.

Sucks that the company's gone downhill a bit.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:30PM
Custard Trout at 3:38AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Sure, I love the generic character design, samey personalties, and ruining of classic stories.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:01PM
Fortune Zero at 4:28AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 9-10-2008
Custard Trout
Sure, I love the generic character design, samey personalties, and ruining of classic stories.

Alot of them weren't generic at the time–in fact, some major stereotypes were established via Disney. I'd also be highly interested in finding out what classic stories they “ruined”–their adaptation of Cinderella, for example, was acknowledged as the 9th best animated film by the American Film Institute. …And don't even get me started on what credits Beauty & the Beast has to its name. Most of Disney's adaptations–not counting the recent ones, again, as Disney's gone down the tubes as of late–are highly praised and thoroughly enjoyed by crazy ridiculous numbers. If you consider making applauded and often award-winning adaptations to be “ruining,” then I really can't dispute your opinion.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:30PM
Custard Trout at 5:14AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Every character has the same personality as every other character of the same role. Sure, there are bits added on or taken away sometimes, but they're defined by their role in the story, none of them have their own voice. The same goes for their design, it's like they just pick bits out of a drawer and glue them together, and the drawer only contains about three parts. You've got the generic boy design, which doubles as the generic girl design if you stick a dress on it, and then there's the classic princess and prince, wacky sidekick, and wacky mentor.

The reason people like the Disney versions of classic stories is because most people haven't read the original stories, they have nothing to compare them to. Besides, Disney stories are nice and simple, there's nothing scary like plot twists or, god forbid, three dimensional characters to get the audiences poor little brains in a twist.

Nice ‘evidence’ there by the way, a bunch of numbers is totally indicative of quality. You sure showed me.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:01PM
Skullbie at 5:26AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 4,773
joined: 12-9-2007
Custard Trout
The reason people like the Disney versions of classic stories is because most people haven't read the original stories, they have nothing to compare them to. Besides, Disney stories are nice and simple, there's nothing scary like plot twists or, god forbid, three dimensional characters to get the audiences poor little brains in a twist.

So Childrens movies aren't deep enough for you? lol!

———
Disney is awesome yes :) My only complaint would be the lack of normal female heroines, mainly because they make the characters so well rounded when they do have them.(mulan, lilo from lilo and stitch)
They're usually just romance fodder formulas. Even in that(rather awful) movie chicken little the quirky girl turned into it at the end.

Isn't disney being hounded for not having black characters right now?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:46PM
Fortune Zero at 5:32AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 9-10-2008
Of course, it all makes sense now. The American Film Institute, the former folks responsible for Golden Globe nominations and the Academy Awards, and Roger Ebert have never read the original stories. You certainly know better than everyone else that's paid to review, criticize, and award movies, and quite a few people on Broadway I might add (since several of these were deemed worthy of retellings via the stage).

How silly of me to bring a bunch of numbers to combat your… uh… view point. The opinion of the majority and of field professionals certainly don't mean anything when you don't like the movies.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:30PM
Custard Trout at 5:36AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Damn straight. I know everything and the sooner you people figure that out, the better off the world is going to be.

Skullbie
So Childrens movies aren't deep enough for you? lol!

It wouldn't bother me if it was just children praising them, the reason I'm mad is that Disney's tripe is getting awards when there's people out there with more talent in their fucking hair than the entire company could ever have.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:01PM
Fortune Zero at 5:47AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 9-10-2008
So your target audience absolutely must be adults before you can be credited for anything? Nobody should be rewarded for focusing on the kids?

Disney makes children's movies–extremely good children's movies. If you can name someone that makes better children's movies, then by all means–in the meantime, Disney was better in its prime at making children's movies than any other single movie company is at making … well, alot of things. Just because Disney doesn't sit down and make movies just for you doesn't mean they're bad movies, and it certainly doesn't make for bad adaptations. Really, your argument seems a bit confusing–did Disney somehow dumb down the role of the Evil Stepmother? Was there some magical character depth in all the old stories that Disney somehow destroyed?

Disney took what it had to work with and made a long series of classic children's movies that most people can appreciate, at a time when such movies were in extremely short demand. It's easy to look back from today's standpoint, with all the crazy movies we have, and act like Disney makes boring movies–at the time, though, it was hot stuff. It's silly to pretend that Disney didn't do anything for the animation industry overall, they practically built it with their bare hands.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:30PM
amanda at 5:57AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,075
joined: 9-19-2007
While the animated movies may be going downhill of late, I think they've been kicking their live-action stuff up a few notches. But Disney as a GUY was incredible - he poured everything into his love for cartooning. I totally understand what he built is amazing!

On a side note, my mom makes a really interesting case for him being a butt fetishist.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:51AM
Custard Trout at 6:01AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Fortune Zero
It's silly to pretend that Disney didn't do anything for the animation industry overall, they practically built it with their bare hands.

I'm not saying that, that's about the only valuable contribution Disney have ever made for society.

Fortune Zero
So your target audience absolutely must be adults before you can be credited for anything? Nobody should be rewarded for focusing on the kids?

Disney makes children's movies–extremely good children's movies.

No, Disney make terrible kids movies. Why should a kids movie win anything, they're never any good.

That's another thing that pisses me off, why do people, like you, assume that children can't seem to handle decent entertainment? I hated Disney since my age was a single digit and no amount of whining is going to change my mind.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:01PM
Fortune Zero at 6:05AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 9-10-2008
Custard Trout
No, Disney make terrible kids movies. Why should a kids movie win anything, they're never any good.

That's another thing that pisses me off, why do people, like you, assume that children can't seem to handle decent entertainment? I hated Disney since my age was a single digit and no amount of whining is going to change my mind.

Again, name me some better kid's movies from the era. I'd love to know what kid's movies should have been picking up those kudos instead of Disney. I also like that not complaining about Disney getting other peoples' awards is suddenly whining.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:30PM
Custard Trout at 6:14AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Everything you say is whining, for I declare it so.

Did I say there was anything better than Disney? Did I say they were at the bottom? No, Disney were the best, but the best sucked like a pile of rancid shite. Childrens entertainment is just generally bad, and that's a terrible thing.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:01PM
lothar at 6:15AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
Disney SUCKS !!!

all they do is take old stories and gut them of any meaning or life lessons and add some singing creatures and a dipshit princess and BINGO you have an instant blockbuster worth millions !

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Fortune Zero at 6:19AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 9-10-2008
Custard Trout
Everything you say is whining, for I declare it so.

Did I say there was anything better than Disney? Did I say they were at the bottom? No, Disney were the best, but the best sucked like a pile of rancid shite. Childrens entertainment is just generally bad, and that's a terrible thing.

So basically, you can't say “I never saw the appeal in children's movies” without going “BAAAW WHERE'S THE PLOT TWISTS. DISNEY RUINS FAIRYTALES.” Just wanted to make sure this wasn't anything deeper than that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:30PM
Custard Trout at 6:40AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Basically.

Explain to me then, why childrens movies can't be deep. Just because they're children, it doesn't mean they're stupid.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:01PM
Fortune Zero at 6:46AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 21
joined: 9-10-2008
Hey, if you want to set your four-year-old in front of Donnie Darko, I don't think anyone's going to stop you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:30PM
saryn11 at 7:09AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 9
joined: 9-6-2007
One thing that bothers me about Disney movies (and yes, I've watched my fair share as a kid) is the weakness and simplicity of the female characters. Even the ones who are arguably the “strongest” (eg Belle and Mulan) aren't happy until they settle down with a man. It's like Disney tried a little bit to make them heroines, but still made them ultimately weak and in need of male rescue. On a different note, Jasmine has always struck me as a sex object, which has turned me off from Aladdin even though I otherwise like the story. Disclaimer: I'm 20 and I still watch Beauty and the Beast occasionally. But I'm still critical of it, especially since discussing it with a prof and having her scoff at the “feminism” in the film.

Disney definitely simplifies and cleans up the stories. I guess you could argue that that's appropriate since they're designed for children, but so were the original fairy tales. That same prof said that in the original B&B, Belle is raped by the beast.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:24PM
Skullbie at 7:11AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 4,773
joined: 12-9-2007
Custard Trout
Explain to me then, why childrens movies can't be deep. Just because they're children, it doesn't mean they're stupid.
Kids actually can't get ‘deep’ movies unless it's explained to them, they aren't stupid, it's just your brain develops the ability to think abstractly(beyond what you see) in the early teens and onwards, little kids don't have that part developed yet.

Little kids see the movies for what they are; fun adventures to watch with a moral lesson ingrained(i.e. do what's right, or looks aren't everything) but they mostly just see a cute talking lion who has the same troubles they do and laugh when he has to eat grubs with a meerkat and warthog.
hakuna matata~


@saryn11
Well i'm glad they clean the stories then, belle being raped by the beast would have encouraged furries everywhere and god knows Disney already has a huge market to them.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:46PM
Custard Trout at 7:45AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Ok, so they don't have to involve complex discussions of philosophy and science, but they could at least make them a bit more interesting.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:01PM
htbuzz at 7:54AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 21
joined: 9-5-2008
Walt Disney was from Missouri, thus he was a genius AND a god! :)

Ummmm, this thread did start out as being about the man, not the company, right?
Beer me!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:51PM
htbuzz at 8:00AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 21
joined: 9-5-2008
saryn11
Disney definitely simplifies and cleans up the stories. I guess you could argue that that's appropriate since they're designed for children, but so were the original fairy tales.

True, but the original “fairy tales” were written very long ago when things were quite different. Life was more of a struggle and thus a bit more grim (no pun intended) back then. As society developed and people felt safer, they wanted their children's entertainment to have happy endings and not make the little rugrats sad.

Just my two cents.
Beer me!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:51PM
usedbooks at 8:38AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,617
joined: 2-24-2007
There are quite a few animated Disney movies I love and just as many I don't care for. Aladdin and Hercules remain my top favorites. I love that Megara never joined the ranks of the over-comercialized over-girlified Disney toys. Mulan was a good one too. I didn't much care for any of the fairytale movies that were injected with talking animals and didn't attempt any character depth for protagonists or antagonists.

Their original stories are also fun, and the subcompanies that they bought/own are really very good – like Pixar and Henson. (I'm a pretty big fan of the Muppets.)

I think my big gripes are not the films themselves but the nauseating commercial crap surrounding them. Too many straight to DVD sequels (or worse, PREquels … to fairytales? Ugh), too much cheap plastic MacDonalds crap. No, Disney, not EVERY movie needs a video game, an animated series, and its own line of linens and furniture. And the very word “princess” gives me a nice little mini-stroke as it warps the minds of little girls all over the world. – Although, there are plenty of other children's toys that cause me the same rage. No matter how advanced society gets, we continue to encourage little girls to be shallow, fashion-obsessed princesses and little boys to be hardcore, violent, truck-loving soldiers.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:37PM
ozoneocean at 9:23AM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,056
joined: 1-2-2004
I'd have to agree with what both Lothar and Custard say about what was done to the traditional stories that Disney used to establish his franchise.
I don't think it was done cynically… I suppose they just wanted some classics, well out of copyright, and decided to re-jig them just for kids in a very conservative post-war puritan, right leaning, American sort of way. And so you end up with what they brought out. For some strange reason they continued to follow that model pretty closely. …Which they didn't really need to do and don't have much justification for anymore. Possibly they just see it as the style that their company should follow :(

And that's why the Japanese carry the baton now: not so hung-up on story style, theme, subject matter etc.

The animation was excellent though. Technically and aesthetically artistically they are still very impressive :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Fishfilet at 4:14PM, Sept. 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 2-11-2008
Disney may have contributed to cartooning in general, but I have to say I agree with the Custard. Disney's films don't much contribute to society, and kids do actually have the ability to enjoy and understand somewhat deeper movies. Plus, I think it's good for kids to see films and read books that shoot above their age group. Not to say 7-year-olds should see R rated films, but it's good for them to have to struggle to understand a character and their reasonings. It's important to know that everything is not black and white, as Disney movies tend to portray things.

Honestly I loved Don Bluth films as a kid. All Dogs go to Heaven had very three-dimensional characters (okay, one. Whatever). Kids need to see that. Although I must say even Bluth films had pretty flat villains.

And then there's Bakshi, who is amazing. Though perhaps not the best for kids. xD

Also I am really pissed at all the 3D movies Disney and such have been putting out. I feel like American 2D animation is dying.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:29PM
Brogan at 5:17PM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 121
joined: 2-21-2007
htbuzz
Ummmm, this thread did start out as being about the man, not the company, right?
Ummm….yeah, that was the intent. Disney the company (i.e. ABC, ESPN, etc.) - doesn't do it for me. I was just bringing up what Walt Disney (the man) accomplished in his lifetime…
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
usedbooks at 5:26PM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,617
joined: 2-24-2007
Brogan
htbuzz
Ummmm, this thread did start out as being about the man, not the company, right?
Ummm….yeah, that was the intent. Disney the company (i.e. ABC, ESPN, etc.) - doesn't do it for me. I was just bringing up what Walt Disney (the man) accomplished in his lifetime…
There's a lesson here. Never name your company after yourself.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:37PM
Skullbie at 9:05PM, Sept. 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 4,773
joined: 12-9-2007
Fishfilet
Honestly I loved Don Bluth films as a kid. All Dogs go to Heaven had very three-dimensional characters (okay, one. Whatever).


All dogs go to heaven sucked though.

Dogs suck.





*watches cats don't dance*
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:46PM
lothar at 5:21AM, Sept. 17, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
Skullbie
Kids actually can't get ‘deep’ movies unless it's explained to them, they aren't stupid, it's just your brain develops the ability to think abstractly(beyond what you see) in the early teens and onwards, little kids don't have that part developed yet.


WRONG !!!
that's simply not true Skull .
have you ever watched Doraemon ? that show is made for kids and has plenty of “deep” subject matter .or is it that Japanese kids brains just develop faster than American kids. or maybe Americans kids brains are being retarded by vacuous cartoons like those pumped out by disney .
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved